Honestly, if everything went terribly wrong with the system they're talking about, we'd be exactly where we are, more or less, right now -- without DNSSEC. However, "keys to reboot the Internet in case of disaster" is a better headline.
Did you consider that there is almost always a step change (actually, it's a defining feature) when you merge a proxy and an instrumental record?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I didn't combine data from proxy and instrumental record, to my knowledge. The NOAA data to determine modern warming rate is from sensors. The data used to compute temperature change rate during the 41 kyr and 100 kyr cycle periods are from sediment core analysis. Provided sediment cores are a linear proxy for temperature, you can compare rates of change without any concern for what the offset is.
How could they be?
That's not actually a valid analysis of any sort.
Let's not even get into the fact that the surface instrumental temperature record itself is tainted by UHI effects that are not adequately dealt with.
I'll skip whether or not that statement is accurate and skip the fact that you now seem to be arguing an entirely different point than originally.
Modern warming rates are confirmed by, among other things, using multiple sources of temperature data. For example, the NOAA data uses surface temperatures, including the GHCN land station data, and reports 0.013 C/yr for the past 50 years. The RSS satellite-based temperature data set gives 0.0158 C/yr, and the UAH satellite temperature data gives 0.0135 C/yr.
No, ice ages are too short on that timescale. They're what makes the temperature in the recent era such a wide band in that figure. That figure does nicely show that, very roughly, there's been a 4 x 10^-10 C/yr cooling trend since the Eocene, though.
I'm not sure what that really has to say about temperature changes in the last century that are a factor 10^8 faster.
Correct me if my back-of-the-envelope estimate here is wrong.
Just looking at some readily-available graphs of recent temperature averages, it looks like there's a change of 0.8 C in somewhere between 100 and 150 years. That's about 0.005 C/yr (using 150 years). (NOAA claims the rate for the past 50 years is 0.013 C/yr.)
The graph you link notes two areas of interest: a time period with 41 kyr cycles and a time period with 100 kyr cycles. The maximum oscillations during the former appear to be about 5-6 C; during the latter, about 8 C. Using 6 C for the shorter cycle and approximating a "cycle" as taking one-half the period (20 kyr and 50 kyr) to vary between the maximum and minimum, I get temperature change rates of 0.0003 C/yr and 0.0002 C/yr. That's a solid order of magnitude lower rate than the effect that is described as "global warming".
It seems very reasonable to estimate that the decidedly natural effect(s) responsible for the periodic temperature change in the graph you link to account for no more the 5-10% of the temperature change referred to as "global warming".
He'd need a wiretap to intercept it, not an NSL. At that rate, it'd be easier to obtain a subpoena to get the information directly from GMail. That way it won't tie up the imaginary computers at the NSA that can decrypt everything.
They can't snoop on your traffic with an NSL unless your ISP is recording your network traffic. Nor can they access what is on your computer. An NSL only enables them to obtain records from your ISP (subscriber information, toll billing records, ISP login records, and electronic communication transaction records). It's not a wiretap, nor is it a warrant that gives them access to information stored on your property.
Also, if you add more water vapor to the atmosphere, it simply rains more. CO2 persists for a longer time in the atmosphere, which makes releasing it a problem.
If you have to slam on your brakes to stop in the amount of time it takes a traffic light to change from yellow to red, you're going too fast for the conditions.
It doesn't say that. It says if the same content would be required to have CC if it was transmitted over the airwaves, it also would be required to having CC if it is transmitted over the Web. Radio transmission isn't used as a determining factor for requiring CC. Rather, they are reusing an existing standard for determining whether content requires CC (the standard that is used for radio transmissions of video) and applying that same standard to similar content with a different mode of transmission.
While the "not possibly lethal to anyone" implication is arguable, I'll readily agree that it's a bit stupid to regulate marijuana as heavily as guns or cars. Guns are intentionally dangerous, and cars are far more accidentally dangerous than pot.
This is well-addressed elsewhere if you are actually interested in learning, but two useful points: * Your comment is unrelated to what I said. I only said that Earth's relatively-recent global temperature changes and solar output can be easily shown to be unrelated. No comments about CO2 are relevant to that. * The human-generated CO2 that puts the "A" in "AGW" hasn't been around for much longer than 200 years (post-Industrial Revolution). In the historical era, CO2 leads temperature change. With data on much earlier time scales, CO2 lags temperature change. * The lag you refer to hasn't been buried, bur rather is well-discussed in peer-reviewed climatology literature.
Not really. Most of the people who do the research are climatologists. Their work is only done when we understand everything about climate, which isn't going to happen as a result of global warming research, regardless of the outcome.
If only there was some systematic method for analyzing these things! We could measure the variations in solar output and the variations in temperature and correlate them.
Then we'd discover that the solar radiation variation is tiny compared to solar output, is periodic, and is not close to sufficient to explain recent warming.
I love when airports or airlines do free gate check for large bags. Flying out of our small local airport, they have the same carry-on regulations as everywhere else, but the planes just can't hold anything of size, so any larger bags get gate-checked, which means no hunting for a spot to put the thing and no fees.
Don't you understand? The moment you kill NASA, private industry will rise to the space research and exploration challenge and do a better job for less money!
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, if everything went terribly wrong with the system they're talking about, we'd be exactly where we are, more or less, right now -- without DNSSEC. However, "keys to reboot the Internet in case of disaster" is a better headline.
Did you consider that there is almost always a step change (actually, it's a defining feature) when you merge a proxy and an instrumental record?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I didn't combine data from proxy and instrumental record, to my knowledge. The NOAA data to determine modern warming rate is from sensors. The data used to compute temperature change rate during the 41 kyr and 100 kyr cycle periods are from sediment core analysis. Provided sediment cores are a linear proxy for temperature, you can compare rates of change without any concern for what the offset is.
How could they be?
That's not actually a valid analysis of any sort.
Let's not even get into the fact that the surface instrumental temperature record itself is tainted by UHI effects that are not adequately dealt with.
I'll skip whether or not that statement is accurate and skip the fact that you now seem to be arguing an entirely different point than originally.
Modern warming rates are confirmed by, among other things, using multiple sources of temperature data. For example, the NOAA data uses surface temperatures, including the GHCN land station data, and reports 0.013 C/yr for the past 50 years. The RSS satellite-based temperature data set gives 0.0158 C/yr, and the UAH satellite temperature data gives 0.0135 C/yr.
To be fair, copying your hard drive is a hell of a lot more effective way of getting your web browsing history than ISP logs.
No, ice ages are too short on that timescale. They're what makes the temperature in the recent era such a wide band in that figure. That figure does nicely show that, very roughly, there's been a 4 x 10^-10 C/yr cooling trend since the Eocene, though.
I'm not sure what that really has to say about temperature changes in the last century that are a factor 10^8 faster.
What do you think the third bullet point is?
Correct me if my back-of-the-envelope estimate here is wrong.
Just looking at some readily-available graphs of recent temperature averages, it looks like there's a change of 0.8 C in somewhere between 100 and 150 years. That's about 0.005 C/yr (using 150 years). (NOAA claims the rate for the past 50 years is 0.013 C/yr.)
The graph you link notes two areas of interest: a time period with 41 kyr cycles and a time period with 100 kyr cycles. The maximum oscillations during the former appear to be about 5-6 C; during the latter, about 8 C. Using 6 C for the shorter cycle and approximating a "cycle" as taking one-half the period (20 kyr and 50 kyr) to vary between the maximum and minimum, I get temperature change rates of 0.0003 C/yr and 0.0002 C/yr. That's a solid order of magnitude lower rate than the effect that is described as "global warming".
It seems very reasonable to estimate that the decidedly natural effect(s) responsible for the periodic temperature change in the graph you link to account for no more the 5-10% of the temperature change referred to as "global warming".
Sometimes a little quantification is useful.
He'd need a wiretap to intercept it, not an NSL. At that rate, it'd be easier to obtain a subpoena to get the information directly from GMail. That way it won't tie up the imaginary computers at the NSA that can decrypt everything.
They can't snoop on your traffic with an NSL unless your ISP is recording your network traffic. Nor can they access what is on your computer. An NSL only enables them to obtain records from your ISP (subscriber information, toll billing records, ISP login records, and electronic communication transaction records). It's not a wiretap, nor is it a warrant that gives them access to information stored on your property.
No, as TFAs clearly cover, this applies only to obtaining records from your ISP.
Also, if you add more water vapor to the atmosphere, it simply rains more. CO2 persists for a longer time in the atmosphere, which makes releasing it a problem.
If you have to slam on your brakes to stop in the amount of time it takes a traffic light to change from yellow to red, you're going too fast for the conditions.
It doesn't say that. It says if the same content would be required to have CC if it was transmitted over the airwaves, it also would be required to having CC if it is transmitted over the Web. Radio transmission isn't used as a determining factor for requiring CC. Rather, they are reusing an existing standard for determining whether content requires CC (the standard that is used for radio transmissions of video) and applying that same standard to similar content with a different mode of transmission.
They're concerned about electromagnetic radiation, not static magnetic fields.
Sadly, no. That's a great idea, if only I had enough space to need goats.
There are a lot of Libertarians here.
The poison's cheap. Having it not kill you is expensive.
While the "not possibly lethal to anyone" implication is arguable, I'll readily agree that it's a bit stupid to regulate marijuana as heavily as guns or cars. Guns are intentionally dangerous, and cars are far more accidentally dangerous than pot.
Kudzu is excellent forage, and creatures like goats will actually eat kudzu to the point that it doesn't grow back.
Also, goat meat is pretty damn tasty, if only you can get Southerners to start cooking like the people of the Caribbean or North Africa.
This is well-addressed elsewhere if you are actually interested in learning, but two useful points:
* Your comment is unrelated to what I said. I only said that Earth's relatively-recent global temperature changes and solar output can be easily shown to be unrelated. No comments about CO2 are relevant to that.
* The human-generated CO2 that puts the "A" in "AGW" hasn't been around for much longer than 200 years (post-Industrial Revolution). In the historical era, CO2 leads temperature change. With data on much earlier time scales, CO2 lags temperature change.
* The lag you refer to hasn't been buried, bur rather is well-discussed in peer-reviewed climatology literature.
Not really. Most of the people who do the research are climatologists. Their work is only done when we understand everything about climate, which isn't going to happen as a result of global warming research, regardless of the outcome.
If only there was some systematic method for analyzing these things! We could measure the variations in solar output and the variations in temperature and correlate them.
Then we'd discover that the solar radiation variation is tiny compared to solar output, is periodic, and is not close to sufficient to explain recent warming.
I love when airports or airlines do free gate check for large bags. Flying out of our small local airport, they have the same carry-on regulations as everywhere else, but the planes just can't hold anything of size, so any larger bags get gate-checked, which means no hunting for a spot to put the thing and no fees.
Cultivar or variety, not species.
The mosquitoes are actually infected, it just doesn't significantly negatively affect them. That's a common way of being a carrier.
Don't you understand? The moment you kill NASA, private industry will rise to the space research and exploration challenge and do a better job for less money!